Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Amcor Printing Papers Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 17

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Amcor Printing Papers Group Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 17

The ACCC's circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole and bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations, did not give rise to a reasonable and definite inference that Amcor and Visy made or arrived at the pleaded arrangement or understanding. Alternative explanations for the communications between Mr Guthridge and Mr Nott, including verification of the Amcor Offer, were at least as plausible, and Amcor's later withdrawal of the offer and continued trading with Flagstaff did not establish the alleged contraventions. The respondents' no case submission was therefore upheld and the application dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 January 2000
Procedural Posture
Proceeding Seeking Declarations, Injunctions, Pecuniary Penalties and Other Relief for Alleged Contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Respondents' No Case Submission at the Close of the Applicant's Case in Chief, Heard Without Requiring an Election to Call No Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed against all respondents; parties to file and serve written submissions on costs.
Legal Topics
['exclusionary Provision' 'arrangement or Understanding' 'no Case to Answer' 'election to Call No Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'standard of Proof for Pecuniary Penalties']
['trade Practices' 'competition Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['exclusionary Provision' 'arrangement or Understanding' 'no Case to Answer' 'election to Call No Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'standard of Proof for Pecuniary Penalties']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Proceeding Seeking Declarations, Injunctions, Pecuniary Penalties and Other Relief for Alleged Contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (cth) / Respondents' No Case Submission at the Close of the Applicant's Case in Chief, Heard Without Requiring an Election to Call No Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Amcor and Visy made an arrangement or arrived at an understanding containing an exclusionary provision in contravention of s 45(2)(a)(i) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether Amcor gave effect to an exclusionary provision by withdrawing the Amcor Offer and ceasing to attempt to make contracts with Flagstaff in contravention of s 45(2)(b)(i) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).' 'Whether Messrs Nott and Guthridge were knowingly concerned in or party to the alleged contraventions.' 'Whether the respondents should be permitted to make a no case submission without electing not to call evidence.' 'Whether the circumstantial evidence gave rise to a reasonable and definite inference of the pleaded arrangement or understanding.']

Ratio Decidendi

The ACCC's circumstantial evidence, taken as a whole and bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations, did not give rise to a reasonable and definite inference that Amcor and Visy made or arrived at the pleaded arrangement or understanding. Alternative explanations for the communications between Mr Guthridge and Mr Nott, including verification of the Amcor Offer, were at least as plausible, and Amcor's later withdrawal of the offer and continued trading with Flagstaff did not establish the alleged contraventions. The respondents' no case submission was therefore upheld and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed against all respondents; parties to file and serve written submissions on costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed against all respondents.' 'The parties file and serve written submissions on the question of costs.']